So what do you want to do tonight, Brain?

I can't keep up anymore. By the time I get up in the morning, the story has changed tenfold from when I went to bed. And now, I see, it has turned into something that may as well been born in Hollywood. It's got comedy, action, drama, suspense and plot twists that will give you whiplash. As Allah said: I tell you, when they make the movie of this story, the whole soundtrack is going to be calliope.
For those of you who think that bloggers covering this story 24/7 should let it go, already, I ask you to ponder the implications of this:
CBS Arranged For Meeting With Lockhart. Now, just in case you're behind, Joe Lockhart is former Clinton White House Press Secretary hired by the Kerry campaign to help fend off the Swift Boat ads.

A senior Kerry aide phoning the forgery-passer at the request of CBS? CBS is advising the Kerry campaign? And the Kerry campaign is following the advice? Fire them all.

Yes.
I've been saying all along that this story is huge in terms of it giving the mainstream media (MSM) a black eye. Let me reiterate: This is, for me, not about Bush and his guard duty. I don't care about that inasmuch as I no longer care about Kerry's holiday in Cambodia. And I think it should be obvious to anyone observing this farce what the real issue here is.
So why do I feel like I have to shake some people by the collar to get them to see the importance of all these revelations? How can you just blow off the fact that a major newscaster went ahead with a story that was backed only by shoddy documents whose authenticity had not been proved for the sole reason of rushing that story on the air because it flows with the newscaster's political bias? You don't believe that? Fine, there's a two for one sale on bridges today. Get out your checkbook. Dan Rather was silenced? Silenced? Get a grip.
I'll say it again. This is about the media and how they report stories. It's about bias, influence peddling and agendas. As my hero Jay Sherman would say, it stinks!
This is a political scandal. It's no longer a he said/she said/Karl Rove used his Magic Conspiracy Machine story. How some people can be in such complete denial about the major issues here is beyond my comprehension. The disconnect from reality has to be intense for you to not see what's going on here.
Even if John Kerry had nothing at all to do with this, it reflects badly on his campaign. If one of his advisers is running around making whisper deals with a major news channel to help that channel spread a story about the opponent, well, my god, how can you not see what's wrong there?
You know, if I were Karl Rove I would be flattered right about now. Apparently, the consensus among dems and all stripes of the left is that Rove is a freaking genius. How else can you explain that they think he is the mastermind of every single thing that has gone wrong with the Kerry campaign and every single thing that has turned the tide in Bush's direction? Genius, I tell you. And most likely a magical sorcerer, too.
I imagine that if Rove and Terry McAuliffe ever joined forces, the would call themselves Pinky and the Brain.

my sense of everything that's going on right now is that there's more "operation fortunate son" revelations to come, and so they're stalling for time until they can get those ducks back into the right rows. rather said early on that there was so "much more" evidence than just these four memos (maybe rather will offer up an explanation of that when he powwows with larry king tonight). and terry mcauliffe said on wolf blitzer's late edition sunday, as a throw-away line in a barrage of comments going between himself and ed gillepsie about the documents, that "we have more."

personally, this reminds me of when i finally realized that clinton wasn't going to come clean with us and actually tell us the truth about his, um, internal activities. i was ready to reevaluate my derisive judgments against him ... right up to the point, well, that he pointed at us and denounced "that woman." it was then i realized that he was going to get away with this entirely. he took a few blows (oops, sorry), but for the most part, he walzed across the dance floor and out the door unscathed. AND he became very popular with europeans.

so my sense at this moment is that nothing AT ALL will come of any of this. maybe a mapes-as-scapegoat scene, but none of the big stuff, and probably not so much as even a slap on the hand for the DanMan. and in the few short weeks until the election, CBS, and eventually the rest of MSM, will have quite effectively ignored it out of the news cycle, and the next big attack will be launched.

i hope i'm wrong. but i lost all respect for the MSM about 25 years ago, and the higher up the CBS players are, and the truly connected to the DNC's plans that they are, the better they will all be at wiggling out from under this one.

Drudge may have just thing to soothe your troubled brow today: information that we may face a catostrophic attack by Al Queda between now and Inauguration day. so Buck up!! We may all yet have the chance to die horribly in metro area.

For me, it's relatively easy to blow off, or at least to mute it's effect because it's taught me nothing I didn't already know in my heart. Dan Rather and most of the MSM are partisan Democrats..

It's a lot of fun following the gossip around the story and seeing someone like Rather squirm, but is it really a bigger story with more dire implications than the Mullahs in Iran about to be nuclear armed?

The MSM may actually have to admit some of their bias, will it really matter in the end?For almost 3 years I've been reading and writing about media bias... Again, I'm glad Rather has been busted but it's certainly no surprise.

"This is, for me, not about Bush and his guard duty. I don't care about that inasmuch as I no longer care about Kerry's holiday in Cambodia."

Clearly so, since the Navy's recent conclusion that Kerry came by his medals honestly and honorably hasn't even made a ripple here.

"Even if John Kerry had nothing at all to do with this, it reflects badly on his campaign."

You must be joking. It might "reflect badly" if his campaign had forged the documents, just like it would "reflect badly" if George Bush's campaign had forged the documents. Neither alternative seems likely at the moment--it looks like purely a Burkett home cooked meal to me.

The vast majority of voters don't give a damn about the appointment books of Karl Rove or Terry McAuliffe. They are not running for President and neither is Dan Rather.

It's a juicy scandal certainly, and a massive MSM fall from grace. And, while its too bad the scandal is not about the inane, craven, and cowardly coverage of the run-up to the Iraq war, in my view, any scandal actually beats no scandal at all.

We need a major housecleaning of our radios, our televisions, and our newspapers, and have needed it badly for decades.

Maybe we can finally get a clear consensus once again on the the difference between news coverage, partisan opinion, horserace handicapping, and juicy gossip.

How can you just blow off the fact that a major newscaster went ahead with a story that was backed only by shoddy documents whose authenticity had not been proved for the sole reason of rushing that story on the air because it flows with the newscaster's political bias?

This is not a fact, Michele. Facts are something you can provide evidence for. This is an opinion, and it's clearly questionable in several aspects. The fact that CBS ran a story backed by 1) shoddy documents and 2) at least one source who clearly had a bone to grind is unquestionable. Everything else in that statement is opinion and clearly quite questionable.

For example: "the sole reason of rushing that story on the air because it flows with the newscaster's political bias" doesn't make any sense at all. I can think of many much better reasons than that. One, in particular, stands out for me and I doubt it's even something you would seriously disagree with. Maybe you didn't pick up on another salient fact: CBS passed their source on to the Kerry campaign!

You want to know why CBS rushed this whole thing? They had to. The second their producer passed that contact on to the Kerry campaign, their exclusive scoop was on a timer. They had no way of knowing what Burkett might say to the Kerry camp, but they had to assume Burkett would keep talking about the same thing. If you think that had nothing to do with it, I've got bridges to sell you.

Here's the question I don't hear anyone asking: why did Burkett demand that CBS pass him to Kerry's campaign? It's not like they don't have publically available contact information and it's not like Burkett couldn't come up with the right stuff to say to get passed up the chain. Here's what I see (and this is just my opinion): that was a smooth move to force CBS to rush this story.

"In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards."

those pushing around the paperwork were acting honestly and honorably.

You think there's a high barrier of entry for a former Lt. Colonel to talk to the Kerry Campaign? That's not the story I've heard from anyone else. Now, we don't know what he wanted to talk about. You seem to be making some assumptions in that area (ie he's trying to sell something to the Kerry campaign).

We know he already sold his agenda to CBS. What's the value added to him under your assumption? Selling the same story twice doesn't really make sense. It would be better to either give an exclusive (for a more focused impact) or sell it to everyone (for wider distribution). Possibly he wants a job with the Kerry campaign, but that would hurt his credibilty for a book deal or other self-advancement. Maybe there's something there, but it just doesn't add up for me. It also might be a simple ego gratification to have the Kerry campaign calling him.

However, I have a much simpler explanation: he demanded a contact from CBS because he wanted CBS to know he was talking with the Kerry campaign. That isn't geo-political rocket science, it's one of the oldest and most common negotiation tactics known to man. Let your buyer know you've got other offers.

soli, no doubt the lt.col. has the directions to the local kerry campaign hq, but burkett already had a reputation prior to the memos, one that i don't think the kerry campaign saw much to gain by bringing him into their embrace. a call from cbs would certainly give the kerry gang pause if they intended to shrug the guy off if he were about to hit it big in the news. burkett had been in contact with the campaign, he knew the level of interest in him, which continues to be limited. he wants to be a part of it, and they won't let him.

in dealing with burkett, cbs could have made all sorts of stipulations to keep their story. they called lockhart for the memos. why not call shrum for a guarantee that the memos get passed to no one else. lockhart/kerry breaking the story on 60 minutes is an even bigger scoop. all the while cbs had no guarantees that the original source wasn't talking to 20/20 the week prior, but they won't go to press because the memos have all the realism of a 3-year-old's self portrait. for 5-years they look for the documentation, and they report a smoking cap gun the second it appears because their afraid of being scooped?

250 swift boat vets have voiced displeasure with kerry's past. to show Rather doesn't have his bias, you go look for all times where he has legitimatized any aspect of their arguments, and i'll look for the times where he has discredited the group en masse without so much as a 5-day investigation.

For 5-years they look for the documentation, and they report a smoking cap gun the second it appears because their afraid of being scooped?

Yes, this is exactly how journalists (especially TV journalists) typically behave these days.

In dealing with burkett, CBS could have made all sorts of stipulations to keep their story. They called Lockhart for the memos. Why not call Shrum for a guarantee that the memos get passed to no one else.

You're channeling freeper here. They called Lockhart as a favor for Bunkett and got the memos as quid pro quo. CBS does not have leverage that I am aware of to stipulate anything in this situation and only Bunkett and his currently unknown source have control of the memos, so I'm not sure what you're implying with that. Also, sure he might be talking to 20/20, but that's a whole lot different then knowing for sure he's talking to another party. Further, your hypotheical suggestion that CBS would gain by somehow getting Kerry to break the story exclusively on 60 minutes is just silly. If Kerry was going to break a story like this, he wouldn't do it as an exclusive.

250 swift boat vets have voiced displeasure with Kerry's past.

You're talking about the guys who, amoung other things, continue to insist that when 2 out of 3 initials match between John Kerry and whoever recieved an after-action report, we should be suspicious. The guys who claim that shooting an armed enemy in the back during a war is somehow bad. The guys who want to debate how much you have to be injured to get a purple heart 30 years after the fact based on letting vague recollections of a medic being much more accurate than the medical reports written at the time? Please, the situations might be comparable if the questionable memos were written in crayon and signed "love itchy and scratchy".

Of course, I'm doing a diservice to many of those vets. Most of them only signed up to disagree with the things Kerry said and did after he came back from the war. However, if you want to talk about putting them on TV, you have to talk about what their spokesmen were trying to peddle and you don't need a 5 minute investigation to discredit that.

no, you had the jist of my sentiment. But just to clarify what I intended to write the first time - the deal that cbs settled on with burkett to get the memos was to contact lockhart for burkett (as opposed to getting the memos from lockhart). it wasn't blackmail, it was a deal between two parties. either side can stipulate to whatever they want to close the deal. cbs needed leverage against burkett? cbs had something he wanted - a contact. cbs can sweeten their offer in order to sweeten the pot. no doubt you can agree to this without me breaking it down to even more basic level.

Further, your hypotheical suggestion that CBS would gain by somehow getting Kerry to break the story exclusively on 60 minutes is just silly. If Kerry was going to break a story like this, he wouldn't do it as an exclusive.

i note that you are quick to challenge everyone's assertions by pointing out what constitutes facts, by noting assumptions and hypothetical statements... truly a shame you don't apply the same standards to your own thoughts. but i'm sure you're right. after all, 60 minutes has only been on the air 35 years now, talked to presidents and leaders of countries the world over, including the ayatollah right before he had sadat assassinated (maybe wallace shouldn't have told him that sadat called him a lunatic?), making the largest strides holding cigarette companies accountable (who is victor crawford?), cbs news got only 19 emmy nominations this year, 60 minutes ii winning the category of best interview... just me being silly. didn't realize that you had the facts on this matter. googling 'whistleblower' & '60 minutes' wouldn't give but two, maybe three hits, i'm sure.

actually, by lockhart/kerry, i was implying anyone in the campaign wishing to leak a story. i will try to be more specific next time, but i do appreciate my hypothetical being corrected with your facts. i owe ya, buddy.

nice comments regarding swift boat vets. were you agreeing with my point, or is this the new standard democratic rebuttal where you direct my point back at me? (you must have gotten a kick out of kerry calling bush inconsistent on iraq today). just forget that.. you may have a pretty big blind spot here... reread my commendation of cbs news in this post - do you not see the severity of cbs's recklessness? you can't have these credentials and go with a 'fake but accurate' storyline. what constitutes a fact again?

CBS needed leverage against Burkett? CBS had something he wanted - a contact. CBS can sweeten their offer in order to sweeten the pot. No doubt you can agree to this without me breaking it down to even more basic level.

You aren't suggesting that CBS sweeten the deal at all. Just the opposite, in fact. You are suggesting that they would give him a contact and then put a bunch of limits on what he could talk about with that contact. To state the obvious, once he has the contact, he can say whatever he wants and there's nothing CBS can do about it but cry. In that situation, they have no leverage. The ability to grant a contact is also in no way exclusive to CBS News ... I'm sure 20/20 could get a Kerry contact just as easy. However, CBS did have an option: give Burkett the contact, then break the story faster than it would be possible for the Kerry campaign to vett it.

This scenario seems more reasonable to me than to claim: "sole reason of rushing that story on the air because it flows with the newscaster's political bias." The "bias" motive significantly fails in several areas. For example, why would bias cause "rushing that story"? Wouldn't it be better as an October surprise?

I note that you are quick to challenge everyone's assertions by pointing out what constitutes facts, by noting assumptions and hypothetical statements... truly a shame you don't apply the same standards to your own thoughts.

If, hypothetically, someone were to make a statement in the form "How can you just blow off the fact that ... <qustionable opinion>" then yes, I feel that it is quite valid to complain about the standard of fact being used. I also call people on unstated assumptions when I think they are incorrect. The statement that I made, which you are questioning, is not a fact, it is a conclusion that I am drawing and which I stand behind. It has nothing to do with how many awards CBS News can claim. The comparison is between giving an exclusive scoop to a single news program versus back-channeling to all the major news media that there will be a big revelation at the next public speech. The second options has significant advantages for a presidential candidate, thus my conclusion.

nice comments regarding swift boat vets. were you agreeing with my point, or is this the new standard democratic rebuttal where you direct my point back at me? (you must have gotten a kick out of kerry calling bush inconsistent on iraq today). just forget that.. you may have a pretty big blind spot here... reread my commendation of cbs news in this post - do you not see the severity of cbs's recklessness? you can't have these credentials and go with a 'fake but accurate' storyline. what constitutes a fact again?

No, I was not agreeing with your point, I was explaining how your point was invalid. In order "to show Rather doesn't have his bias" by comparing the Swift Boat Vets to Memo Gate, the two situations must be significantly similar in all major aspects except for which candidate they affect. My statement was meant to establish that they are not sufficiently similar for the methodology your proposed to produce a meaningful result. I have no intention of defending CBS from the charge of reckless stupidity, so on that point I suspect we agree completely. However, to demonstrate bias as the likely cause of that reckless stupidity remains an extremely difficult problem for which I have yet to see any significant progress, here or elsewhere.

My statement was meant to establish that they are not sufficiently similar for the methodology your proposed to produce a meaningful result.

the similarities: presidential candidates plagued by rumors of what happened 30 years ago.
the contrast: political party of the candidates

the comparison: the media chose to go to press with a bogus memo from bogus sourcing in order to attempt to substantiate the rumors against one candidate while the rumors of the other go uninvestigated.

what better comparison? you say they are dissimilar because the the swift boat vets are in error? then who proved to you that bush received preferential treatment?

i didn't say anything about swift boat vets being right or accurate. cbs went to press with a poorly forged memo from a dead guy while they ignore 250 live ones. the challenge was to find where rather had legitimatized any aspect, not their entire agenda. what i would surmise from cbs is that these guys don't have a leg to stand on- an agenda totally baseless, totally unfounded ideas of historical events, not one meritorious gripe against kerry - because cbs has discredited the entire group out of hand without so much as an investigation. check that - the financiers were investigated now, weren't they?

no better comparison can be had. the difference has nothing to do with trying to get this to air expediently. cbs apparently will work an investigation for years. there are no facts, only observations. and the conclusion i draw is the simplest one. bias. preference.

However, if you want to talk about putting them on TV, you have to talk about what their spokesmen were trying to peddle and you don't need a 5 minute investigation to discredit that.

and yet kerry can't do it in a month, won't take the steps to release information to counter the rumors, and cbs has no interest.

A comparison between a bow and a shoulder launched stinger missile to determine lethal capacity by your standards:

The similarities: Both are ranged projectile weapons which require training and a certain amount of strength to use.

The difference: The bow has a 10 to 1 advantage in rate of fire.

Conclusion: by glossing over significant differences between the two weapons, I can reach the illogical conclusion that a bow is more lethal than a shoulder launched missile. Since my methodology was nonsensical, this conclusion is worthless. This method of judgement can only be used when every single major variable except the one we are testing (ie difference of party or difference in rate of fire) is essentially the same.

Here are some major variables you might want to consider when judging news stories in the future:

1) Was the story exclusive?
2) Does the story have documentation that supports its major claims?
b) Does the story have existing documenation that contradicts many of its major claims?
3) Has the story been widely questioned or debunked by 3rd party sources prior to air time?
4) Does the story contain illogical emotional appeals (He shot a man in the back! In the back! The snake!) or fact-checkable statements (He was given an order to appear at 0800 for a flight physical. He did not appear at 0800.)

Now, I'm sure you'd like to try to "turn this back on me" as you say, and say that I am defending CBS. Incorrect. I am simply showing you how your proposed methodology is insufficient to the task. You would be the exact same problem if you were using this logic to test the flight potential of paper airplane designs or to protest the decanting of cloned babies for a meat factory. The conclusions you reach by invalid logic are no better than conclusions reached by flipping a coin.

Soli - If your position is that no two snowflakes can be compared because no two are alike, then I find that I don't have the time to play with you. We aren't comparing apples and oranges. You're avoiding a discussion about braeburns and galas.

My prior example used the first distinction from the lowest common denominator. In your mirror of my example, did you?

I keep reading your list of variables that I should consider, and can't believe this is what you mean by dissimilarities.

Was the story exclusive?
I was under the impression that more than just cbs was researching bush's service in the guard. Sure, Burkett isn't giving any info giving any info about swift boats - is that why I can't compare the two? Can't we use any source that will talk solely to cbs? Oh that's right, that would be like an investigation into matter, huh? What have i been yammering about for 2 posts now?

Does the story have documentation that supports its major claims?
Like forged memos? As soon as I'm done with this post. Like military records? Sure, medical reports with mystery initials, and there would be even more if the media would put similar pressure on jk as they did on gwb to release the records. Again, what have i been yammering about for two posts now?

Does the story have existing documenation that contradicts many of its major claims?
Like documentation that says that atrocities weren't committed on a daily basis? Bush has documentation that says he was honorably discharged, but that doesn't count i reckon.

Has the story been widely questioned or debunked by 3rd party sources prior to air time?
Like by kos or the free republic? O'neill was on hannity and colmes last night - surely he's aware that he's been debunked... I don't believe you're the type that assumes that only the left of center crowd is capable objective analysis; why are you letting it cloud your judgment now? All things being equal, i'd say that the awol story has been debunked to the same extent that the vets have been.

Does the story contain illogical emotional appeals (He shot a man in the back! In the back! The snake!) or fact-checkable statements ...
Like ‘bush was awol' and ‘i was in cambodia in ‘68'? Come now, is this really one of your requirements before we can compare stories?

I understand that you have no intention of defending cbs of its actions. Understand that i don't care to advance swift boat vets arguments. Say they're right, say they're wrong, it has no bearing on my point. I am using their case as a tool to reveal the bias of rather/cbs. Consider for just a moment that somehow you have a tainted view of their argument to the extent that you can't even entertain a limited objective review. You have your mind made up on both these issues, apparently. Start from square 1 and look at the process of how you arrived at your conclusions.

The conclusions you reach by invalid logic are no better than conclusions reached by flipping a coin.
When you get around to finally substantiating that claim, i'll give deference to your point. I suggest you meditate on it in the meantime.

RatherGate!!! Below is a NewsMax.com article that says CBS steered the forged document source to the Kerry Campaign!!!

( http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/20/225421.shtml )

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

For the story behind the story...

Monday, Sept. 20, 2004 10:52 p.m. EDT

CBS Steered Forged Doc Source to Kerry Campaign

In what may be the most damaging revelation yet in the Rathergate document scandal, CBS News is admitting that it steered the source of forged military records damaging to President Bush to the Kerry campaign.

In exchange for the meeting with Kerry communications director Joe Lockhart, that source - former National Guard Commander Bill Burkett - agreed to give CBS copies of the Bush records.

USA Today is set to report in Tuesday editions:

"Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a female producer talked to him about the "60 Minutes" program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett."

"At Burkett's request, we gave his [telephone] number to the campaign," Betsy West, senior CBS News vice president, confessed to USA Today.

Late Monday, CBS said it was investigating the role of "60 Minutes" star producer Mary Mapes in setting up the contact between Burkett and Lockhart.

"The network's effort to place Burkett in contact with a top Democratic official raises ethical questions about CBS's handling of material potentially damaging to the Republican president in the midst of an election," the paper said.

Aly Colón, a news ethicist at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, said the collusion between CBS and the Kerry campaign to damage President Bush "poses a real danger to the potential credibility of a news organization."

The White House reacted sharply to the Lockhart development, with Communications Director Dan Bartlett complaining, "The fact that CBS News would coordinate with the most senior levels of Senator Kerry's campaign to attack the president is a stunning and deeply troubling revelation."

RatherGate!!! Below is a NewsMax.com article that says the Kerry Campaign knew about the forged documents Sixty Minutes BEFORE the Sixty Minutes broadcast!!!

( http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/21/123950.shtml )

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

For the story behind the story...

Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2004 12:17 a.m. EDT

Kerry Campaign Touted Forged Doc Info in April

The Kerry campaign made an explicit reference to information in at least one of four forged military documents broadcast 14 days ago by CBS's "60 Minutes" - in a detailed campaign press release attacking President Bush's National Guard service dated months before the Sept. 8 "60 Minutes" broadcast.

Appearing in Kerry campaign literature on April 27, 2004, under the headline "Key Unanswered Questions on Bush's Record in National Guard" was the reference to "verbal orders" to recommend Bush's suspension from flying because he missed a physical - issued by Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian on Aug. 1, 1972.

One of the forged Killian memos broadcast by CBS is also dated Aug. 1, 1972, and chronicles Killian's "verbal orders" to suspend Bush:

In the next paragraph, the Kerry campaign cited a provision in the Air Force Manual that served as a guideline for Killian's decision to suspend Bush:

"AFM 35-13: ... After reviewing the findings of the investigation, the local commander may convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward through command channels a detailed report of the circumstances which resulted in the officer's failure to accomplish a medical examination." [END OF KERRY RELEASE EXCERPT]

Though the information contained in the April campaign release mirrors that in forged memos broadcast by CBS in September, the similarities may be a coincidence.

In a February 2004 document dump, the White House released a batch of President Bush's National Guard records, which included material cited in the Kerry press release.

In a February 12 story headlined "Bush's Loss of Flying Status Should Have Spurred Probe," the Boston Globe covered some of the same material. The Kerry release, however, cited not the Globe report as its source but "Aeronautical Orders" apparently included in the White House document dump.

The April 27 press release does show, however, that the topic of Bush's flight suspension by Killian was very much on the Kerry campaign's radar screen at least four months before CBS broadcast forged military records to further document the story.

Soli - If your position is that no two snowflakes can be compared because no two are alike, then I find that I don't have the time to play with you. We aren't comparing apples and oranges. You're avoiding a discussion about braeburns and galas.

I will turn this back on you, as you are misrepresenting my position. My argument is that in order to make a value judgement, as you are attempting, you cannot ignore significant differences in relevant variables (If the exact shape of a snowflake was a relevant varible, then yes I would actually say that you can't compare two snowflakes in this sort of analysis, but very likely it's irrelevant). Let me give you another simple example:

A white guy attempts a soda from a cachier with a forged $5 bill. He succeeds. A black guy attempts to buy a soda from the same cachier with a forged $7 bill. He fails. From this information, can we attempt to draw a conclusion on whether the cachier is racist?

Because of the extra relevant variables in this equation, we are not able to isolate racism. Even if the situation were more similar (ie they were both passing forged $5 bills of a similar quality), there would still be more unanswered questions. For example: Has that particular black guy tried to pass forged bills to that cashier before? Does the cashier have an existing relationship with the white guy? Did the cashier get a kickback from accepting a forged bill from the white guy? Are you in Mass. and the white guy's last name is Kennedy? For every question I've stated, you could find at least 10,000 irrelevant differences in the situation.

My prior example used the first distinction from the lowest common denominator. In your mirror of my example, did you?

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the "first distiniction from the lowest common denominator." However, you are, in fact, ignoring the primary distinctions between these storys in favor of a secondary distinction (bias), just as I did in my mirror example by ignoring primary distinctions like destructive potential in favor the a secondary characteristic (rate of fire).

I was under the impression that more than just cbs was researching bush's service in the guard.

Yes. This makes having an exclusive more valuable for CBS.

Sure, Burkett isn't giving any info giving any info about swift boats - is that why I can't compare the two?

No. "Burkett" is an irrelevant details. The relevant part is they have a confidential, exclusive informant providing them with explosive details that none of hundreds of other competing journalists have. This is called a "scoop" and it is the single most important advantage you can have as a journalist, the sort of things that win can win awards and make you a bigger star. It is a primary distinction between these two stories. Of course, it carries a bigger risk because you're the only one running with it (maybe no one else has it because it's phony and your source is making the whole thing up!)

Can't we use any source that will talk solely to cbs?

Any exclusive source with explosive details.

Oh that's right, that would be like an investigation into matter, huh? What have i been yammering about for 2 posts now?

If you want to make the case that CBS is biased because it investigated one story and not the other, we can talk about that instead. That is not what we have been discussing however. Burkett and forged documents would be irrelevant in that case, and you would have to provide documentation that CBS did not investigate the SBVFT which would be rather difficult. CBS had an exclusive informant for one story and not the other. I challenge you to straight up address this point, not continue to avoid it.

Like forged memos?

Yes. Except they didn't know they were forged.

Like military records? Sure, medical reports with mystery initials, and there would be even more if the media would put similar pressure on jk as they did on gwb to release the records.Again, what have i been yammering about for two posts now?

They aren't mysterious to anyone who's been paying attention. Neither candidate has released all records, but the stuff that's available does not support the Swift Boat Vets. If they had forged some (or found some real ones) with some really juicy details and gave them exclusive to CBS, then we could compare the situations.

Summary: you can't or won't support any of your points and you're ducking my questions instead of making any effort to actually show the situations to be comparable, so this is my last post on the subject. You may have the last word if you like.